HEALTH LICENSING BOARD
REPORT TO CONGRESS
REQUESTED BY: SENATE REPORT 111-66
_____________________
Mary K. Wakefield, Ph.D., R.N. Administrator, HRSA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As required by Senate Report 111-66, “Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2010, Report of the Committee on
Appropriations on H.R. 3293,” this document provides an update on licensure portability. Under the Telehealth line item, the Senate requested a report:
{O]n the level of cooperation among health licensing boards, the best models for such cooperation and the barriers to cross-state licensing arrangements
This report provides background information on licensure portability, summarizes the experience of grantees funded under the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Licensure Portability Grant Program (LPGP), and discusses some of the issues and barriers affecting licensure portability. It focuses on physicians and nurses that are the two professional groups for which there is the most information on alternative approaches to overcoming licensure barriers to cross-state practice.
Recognizing that the issues of licensure and the delivery of telehealth services were evolving and becoming more complex, the U.S. Congress passed the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002, Public Law (P.L.) 107-251. Section 102 authorized the award of incentive grants to state professional licensing boards to promote cooperation and encourage development and
implementation of state policies that will reduce statutory and regulatory barriers to telehealth. With funds appropriated by Congress in FY 2006, HRSA implemented Section 102 by creating the LPGP. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) have received LPGP funding. In March 2010, HRSA awarded grants to the FSMB and the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing to promote physician licensure portability with funds provided by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), P. L. 111-5.
Licensure portability is seen as one element in the panoply of strategies needed to improve access to quality health care services through the deployment of telehealth and other electronic practice services (e-care or e-health services) in this country. But licensure portability goes beyond improving the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic practice services. Overcoming unnecessary licensure barriers to cross-state practice is seen as part of a general strategy to expedite the mobility of health professionals in order to address workforce needs and improve access to health care services, particularly in light of increasing shortages of healthcare
professionals. It is also seen as a way of improving the efficiency of the licensing system in this country so that scarce resources can be better used in the disciplinary and enforcement activities of state boards, rather than in duplicative licensing processes.
State health professions licensing boards, as well as national groups representing these boards, such as the FSMB and the NCSBN, are seeking ways to simplify the licensing process for physicians and nurses interested in obtaining licenses in more than one state.
The NCSBN has developed a far reaching mutual recognition model for licensing nurses. Under this mutual recognition model, practice across state lines is allowed, whether physical or
electronic, unless the nurse is under discipline or a monitoring agreement that restricts practice across state lines. In order to achieve mutual recognition, each state must enter into an interstate
compact, called the Nurse Licensure Compact (NLC). The NLC was first implemented on January 1, 2000, when it was passed into law by the first participating states: Maryland, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. Currently, 24 states participate in the NLC.
Although the reasons for opposing the Compact vary state-to-state, the persistent challenges to the adoption of the NLC fall into five broad categories: control/loss of authority, lack of uniform standards, cost/loss of revenue, fear among unions and state nurse associations that the NLC would facilitate strike breaking, and misinformation about the Compact/lack of independent evaluation.
Unlike the NLC, a mutual recognition or similar model for cross-state licensure of physicians has yet to be adopted by a large number of states. The FSMB is a national non-profit organization representing medical boards in the United States and its territories. Responding to changes in the delivery of healthcare over the last two decades, the FSMB has incrementally addressed the issue of license portability and cross-state practice.
The FSMB is encouraging states to adopt the model of expedited endorsement. Expedited endorsement is a method of setting criteria to approve a valid license of another state. The process accepts a license issued in another state that was verified and sets requirements for endorsing a license granted in another state. Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Rhode Island currently have adopted the expedited endorsement process.
Unfortunately, some states are uncomfortable with accepting the licensing process of another state. Some state medical boards have a number of concerns with the expedited endorsement process. For instance, not every state board requires criminal background checks. State boards are ultimately responsible for maintaining public protection within the state and may be
unwilling to expedite the license of a physician who has not undergone a criminal background check.
Some of the barriers to licensure portability could be eliminated. The section on possible next steps explains how the licensure process could be less burdensome if processes were streamlined.
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe Health Resources and Services (HRSA) wishes to express its appreciation to the following individuals for providing information to assist in the preparation of this document.
Kathy Apple, MS, RN, FAAN Chief Executive Officer
National Council of State Boards of Nursing
Shirley Brekken, MS, RN Executive Director
Minnesota Board of Nursing
Janet Haebler, MSN, RN Associate Director State Government Affairs American Nurses Association
Nancy Kerr, RN, MA, ED Executive Director
Idaho State Board of Medicine
Bruce McIntyre, JD
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline
Jim Puente
Associate, Nurse Licensure Compact National Council of State Boards of Nursing
Joey Ridenour, MN, RN Executive Director Arizona Board of Nursing
Lisa Robin
Senior Vice President, Advocacy and Member Services
Federation of State Medical Boards
Nancy Sanders, PhD, RN Executive Director Alaska Board of Nursing
Lori Scheidt, BS Executive Director
Missouri Board of Nursing
Katherine Thomas, MN, RN Executive Director
Texas Board of Nursing
Sandra Waters
Chief Operating Officer
Federation of State Medical Boards
Betsy Ranslow, MS, OT/L Senior Policy Analyst
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 5
PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS ... 5
REPORT REQUIREMENT ... 5
BACKGROUND ... 6
LEGAL FOUNDATION ... 6
Author ity ... 6
State Author ity ... 6
Feder al Author ity... 7
Regional/Multi-State Author ity ... 7
THE LICENSURE SYSTEM ... 8
Standar ds ... 8
Enfor cement ... 8
Administr ation ... 8
GENERAL ALTERNATIVE MODELS ... 9
ENABLERS ... 11
Unifor m Cor e licensur e Requir ements ... 11
Common/Unifor m Licensur e Application ... 12
Cr edential Ver ification Or ganization ... 12
LICENSURE PORTABILITY GRANTS ... 13
MAJOR LICENSURE MODELS FOR NURSES AND PHYSICIANS... 15
NURSES………...15
The National Council of State Boar ds of Nur sing/ Nur se Licensur e Compact Model ... 15
PHYSICIANS ... 24
Feder ation of State Medical Boar ds ... 25
OPTIONS FOR NEXT STEPS ... 31
CONCLUSION ... 33
5
INTRODUCTION
Licensure portability is seen as one element in the panoply of strategies needed to improve access to quality health care services through the deployment of telehealth and other electronic practice services (e-care or e-health services) in this country. But licensure portability goes beyond improving the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic practice services. Overcoming unnecessary licensure barriers to cross-state practice is seen as part of a general strategy to expedite the mobility of health professionals to address workforce needs and improve access to health care services, particularly in light of increasing shortages of healthcare professionals. It is also seen as a way of improving the efficiency of the licensing system in this country so that scarce resources can be better used in the disciplinary and enforcement activities of state boards, rather than in duplicative licensing processes. State health professions licensing boards, as well as national groups representing these boards, such as the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, are seeking ways to simplify the licensing process for physicians and nurses interested in obtaining licenses in more than one state.
PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has worked closely with other Federal agencies and public and private organizations to study licensure issues affecting telehealth practice. The Department of Commerce, in collaboration with HHS, submitted the 1997 Report to Congress on Telemedicine that contained a chapter on licensure issues impacting telehealth. In 2001, HHS submitted a Report to Congress that updated the 1997 Report licensure chapter. Each report identified licensure as a major barrier to the development of telehealth.1 Since the publication of these reports, state regulatory boards have attempted to address questions of improving licensure portability (i.e., the practice across state lines) in a variety of ways.
REPORT REQUIREMENT
Senate Report 111-66, “Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2010, Report of the Committee on Appropriations on H.R. 3293,” requires that the Department of Health and Human Services submit a report to provide an update on licensure portability. Under the Telehealth line item, the Senate requested a report:
{O]n the level of cooperation among health licensing boards, the best models for such cooperation and the barriers to cross-state licensing arrangements
1
See Telemedicine Report to the Congress, GPO No: 0126-E-04 (MF), Washington, DC U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and 2001 Telemedicine Report to Congress, GPO No: 619-261/65410,
6 This report provides background information on licensure portability, summarizes the
experience of grantees funded under the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Licensure Portability Grant Program, and discusses some of the issues and barriers affecting licensure portability. Because the report was requested in the context of the United States, it focuses on the U.S. experience. Moreover, the report focuses on physicians and nurses, the two professional groups for which there is the most information on alternative approaches to overcoming licensure barriers to cross-state practice.
BACKGROUND
For over 100 years, healthcare in the United States has primarily been regulated by the states. Such regulation includes the establishment of licensure requirements and enforcement of standards of practice for health providers, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, mental health practitioners, etc. The licensure authority is administered with the goal of ensuring that healthcare professionals are academically qualified, competent, and mentally and physically fit to provide the activities covered by the license.
As the U.S. health system evolves to meet the changing needs of consumers, traditional methods of healthcare delivery are being transformed. No longer do the patient and the provider need to be in the same location to receive quality health services. Telehealth (telecommunications and information) technologies are being used to provide healthcare services in a more efficient and effective manner to address the shortages and maldistribution of healthcare professionals that result in lack of access to quality healthcare services, whether due to geographic, economic, or other social factors. Telehealth services are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream of healthcare. For these reasons, the number of physicians and the number of other health providers practicing across state boundaries have increased in recent years. This trend is expected to continue in the foreseeable future.
LEGAL FOUNDATION
AUTHORITY
Licensure authority defines who has the legal responsibility to grant health professionals permission to practice their profession.
STATE AUTHORITY
States regulate the practice of clinical care under the police power reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. States have the authority to regulate activities that affect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens within their borders.2
However, the states’ power to regulate healthcare may not be absolute. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution
2
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975); see, also, Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 731 (1963); Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 122 (1889).
7 limits states’ ability to erect barriers against interstate trade3 and the practice of healthcare has been held to be interstate trade for the purpose of antitrust laws.4 The potential conflict between the states’ power to regulate health professionals and the prohibition against restraints on interstate commerce has not been addressed by the courts.
The purpose of licensing healthcare professionals is to protect the public from incompetent or impaired practitioners. In order to provide professional healthcare services, most health professionals are required to obtain a certificate of licensure from the state in which their practice is located (see Nurse Licensure Compact exception below). Currently, each state has established Practice Acts that define the processes and procedures for granting a health professional a license, renewing a license and regulating professionals’ practice within a state. Laws governing individual healthcare professions are enacted through state legislative action, with authority to implement the practice acts delegated to the respective state
licensing board. Physicians or other licensed health professionals are considered to be practicing their professions in the state where the patient is located and are subject to that state’s licensing laws unless there is an exception in statute (e.g., consultation exceptions, exceptions for national emergencies).
States do not have the authority to grant practice privileges in another state. In the absence of specific agreements (See Nurse Licensure Compact below), states also may not discipline healthcare professionals not licensed in their state if patient harm occurs as the result of the provision of healthcare services by an out-of-state practitioner.
FEDERAL AUTHORITY
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution preempts state laws that interfere with, or are contrary to, the laws of the Federal government.5 However, there is a strong presumption against preemption.6 The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the regulation of health and safety matters has primarily and historically been a matter of exclusive state concern, and therefore preemption of state law should not occur in the absence of Congress’ clear intent to supersede state law.7
REGIONAL/MULTI-STATE AUTHORITY
Under our Federal form of government, states are sovereign authorities that maintain those powers not ceded to the Federal government. The Constitution recognizes the states’ authority to enter into compacts or agreement with one another subject to the consent of
3 “The Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power ‘to regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several states, and with Indian Tribes.’ Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3. ‘Although the Clause thus speaks in terms of powers bestowed upon Congress, the Court has long recognized that it also limits the power of the states to erect barriers against interstate trade.’” Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 137 (1986) (quoting
Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, 447 U.S. 27, 35 (1980)).
4
See, e.g., Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc’y., 457 U.S. 332 (1982).
5 U.S. Constitution Art. VI, cl.2.
6 The Supreme Court first recognized the Federal-state balance in McCulloch v. Maryland, 14 U.S. (4 Wheat.)
316, 427 (1819). Since that time, “it has been settled” that the doctrine of preemption constitutes the resolution between Federal and state law, and all “state law that conflicts with Federal law if without effect.” Cippolone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992) (quoting Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981)).
8 Congress.8 "An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states established for the purpose of remedying a particular problem of multi-state concern."9 Compacts are multi-state solutions that allow states to accomplish together what they could not accomplish alone. As discussed later, nurses have developed a compact model for licensure that
currently operates in 24 states.
THE LICENSURE SYSTEM
STANDARDS
One of the primary functions of a licensure system is the establishment of academic and clinical competency standards for the practice of the profession. The licensure authority must ensure that those entering the profession are academically qualified, competent, and mentally and physically fit to provide the activities covered by the license.
The basic standards for medical and nursing licensure have become largely uniform across all states. Physicians and nurses must graduate from nationally approved educational programs and pass the national medical and nursing licensure examination for their profession. However, there are significant differences in administrative and filing requirements among states, which could pose barriers to physicians and other health providers attempting to establish a multi-state practice. For physicians these obstacles can sometimes be overcome through “consultation exceptions” which allow occasional, infrequent, or limited practice within a state.
ENFORCEMENT
A licensure system must provide effective monitoring of the nurses’ and physicians' competency and professional conduct, respond to the information brought to it by patients and health professionals, and provide a means to investigate and adjudicate complaints against a health professional. A licensure authority must have the means to hold the nurse or physician accountable for his or her actions and enforce the authority's disciplinary decisions.
ADMINISTRATION
A licensure system must be able to administer and enforce its standards. The system should efficiently issue licenses, monitor activities, and enforce its standards without imposing undue burdens on licensees or the public. Most importantly, the licensure and enforcement process should be consistent and fair.
8
U.S. Const. Art I, Sec. 10, cl.. 3, provides in pertinent part, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement of Compact with another State…”
9
GENERAL ALTERNATIVE MODELS
There are a variety of alternative licensure models of state cooperation that would allow a health professional to practice across state lines electronically. The most prominent models are addressed in the table below.
Model Explanation Consulting
Exceptions
With a consulting exception, a physician who is unlicensed in a particular state can practice medicine in that state at the request of and in consultation with a referring physician. The scope of these exceptions varies from state to state. Most consultation
exceptions prohibit the out-of-state physician from opening an office or receiving calls in the state. In most states, these
exceptions were enacted before the advent of telehealth and were not meant to apply to ongoing regular telehealth links. However, some states permit a specific number of consulting exceptions per year.
Endorsement State boards can grant licenses to health professionals in other states with equivalent standards. Health professionals must apply for a license by endorsement from each state in which they seek to practice. States may require additional qualifications or
documentation before endorsing a license issued by another state. Endorsements allow states to retain their traditional power to set and enforce standards that best meet the needs of the local population. However, complying with diverse state requirements and standards can be time consuming and expensive for a multi-state practitioner.
Reciprocity A licensure system based on reciprocity requires the authorities of each state to negotiate and enter agreements to recognize licenses issued by the other state without a further review of individual credentials. These negotiations can be bilateral or multilateral. A license valid in one state would give privileges to practice in all other states with which the home state has agreements.
Mutual Recognition Mutual recognition is a system in which the licensing authorities voluntarily enter into an agreement to legally accept the policies and processes (licensure) of a licensee’s home state. Licensure based on mutual recognition is comprised of three components: a home state, a host state, and a harmonization of standards for licensure and professional conduct. The health professional secures a license in his/her own home state and is not required to obtain additional licenses to practice in other states. The nurse licensure compact is based on this model.
Registration Under a registration system, a health professional licensed in one state informs the authorities of other states that s/he wished to practice part-time there. By registering, the health professional would agree to operate under the legal authority and jurisdiction of the other state. Health professionals would not be required to
10
Model Explanation
meet entrance requirements imposed upon those licensed in the host state but they would be held accountable for breaches in professional conduct in any state in which they are registered. California had the legal authority to implement a registration system, but never did so.
Limited Licensure Under a limited licensure system, a health professional must obtain a license from each state in which s/he practices but has the option of obtaining a limited license for the delivery of specific health services under particular circumstances. Thus, this model limits the scope rather than the time period of practice. The health professional is required to maintain a full and unrestricted license in at least one state. The Federation of State Medical Boards’ “Model Act to Regulate the Practice of Medicine Across State Lines” follows the limited licensure model, requiring physicians engaged in cross-state medical practice by electronic or other means to obtain a special (limited) license issued by each of the states in which they practice remotely. According to the Federation, sixteen states have adopted a limited licensure model. National Licensure A national licensure system could be adopted on the state or
national level. A license would be issued based on a universal standard for the practice of healthcare in the U.S. If administered at the national level, questions might be raised about state revenue loss, the legal authority of states, logistics about how data would be collected and processed, and how enforcement of licensure standards and discipline would be administered. If administered at the state level, these questions might be alleviated. States would have to agree on a common set of standards and criteria ranging from qualifications to discipline.
Federal Licensure Under a Federal licensure system health professionals would be issued one license, valid throughout the U.S., by the Federal government. Licensure would be based on federally established standards related to qualifications and discipline and would preempt state licensure laws. Federal agencies would administer the system. However, given the difficulties associated with central administration and enforcement, the states might play a role in implementation.
Source: Adapted from and updated from the U.S. Department of Commerce, “Report to Congress on Telemedicine,” 1997.
In addition to some of the health professions organizations (e.g., Federation of State Medical Boards, National Council of State Boards of Nursing), a number of groups have recently issued policies concerning alternatives to improve license portability. Some of these groups include: the American Telemedicine Association (ATA), the American Bar Association (ABA), the State Alliance for e-Health (National Governors Association), and most recently, the Federal Communications Commission.
11 In 2007, the ATA issued a policy position statement supporting policy at the Federal, state, and local levels that creates collaborative agreements between the states regarding medical licensure portability.10 In its position statement, the ATA noted that although medical and allied professional groups have begun to change and adopt telemedicine demonstrations into integrated practice patterns, the regulatory environment governing telemedicine, and in particular interstate licensure, has not adapted as quickly. Although it did not propose a specific model, the ATA position paper outlined 11 specific “guidelines” that a licensure process should exhibit to facilitate licensure portability and telemedicine practice. The American Bar Association (ABA), Health Law Section11 has agreed on a model for allowing the cross-state licensure of physicians. Its May 6 2008 Report to the House of Delegates recommended that the ABA urge states and territories to provide for mutual telemedicine licensure recognition. The ABA model allows physicians with current, valid and unencumbered licenses to file a single application which would permit them to practice telemedicine in other jurisdictions subject to continuing compliance with those jurisdictions’ licensure fees, discipline, and other applicable laws and regulations, and adherence to
professional standards of medical care. The Section further recommended that such legislation should specify a uniform definition of telemedical practice, the requisite
procedures for telemedical licensure, a requirement that the telemedicine provider must agree to the jurisdiction of the patient’s home state for malpractice actions, and the continuing role of state medical boards in physician licensure and discipline. The model has been approved by the ABA but has not been adopted by the states.
The State Alliance for E-Health issued its first Annual Report in 2008 - Accelerating Progress: Using Health Information Technology and Electronic Health Information Exchange to Improve Care, with recommendations to streamline the licensure process to enable cross-state e-health services. In the report, e-health services are defined as including consultation via e-mail and telephone, as well as remote delivery of health services. The State Alliance proposed two stages for addressing the issue of cross-state e-health practice. First, the states should streamline the licensure application and credentials verification
processes to allow providers to more easily apply for a license in multiple states. Second, the State Alliance encouraged states to consider ways to accommodate e-health (including telemedicine and telepharmacy) practice while still maintaining state-based jurisdiction.12 The Federal Communications Commission released a National Broadband Plan in March 2010 that included a section on state licensure requirements, which urged states to revise licensure requirements to enable “e-care.”
13
10
Licensure Portability, Position Statement and Recommendations, American Telemedicine Association, 2007 -
The Plan noted that current licensure requirements limit practitioners’ ability to treat patients across state lines, which hinders access to care. The Plan suggests that the nation’s governors and state legislatures could collaborate through such groups as the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Federation of State Medical Boards to craft an
11 American Bar Association, Health Law Section Report to the House of Delegates, 2008.
12
National Governors Association, ACCELERATING PROGRESS: Using Health Information Technology and Electronic Health Information Exchange to Improve Care, page 33, 2008.
12 interstate agreement. If states fail to develop reasonable licensing policies to facilitate
electronic practice over the next 18 months, the Plan recommends that the Congress should consider intervening to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are not denied the benefits of e-care.
ENABLERS
Many of the above mentioned models require strategic or technical enablers to be
implemented properly and efficiently. Some examples of enablers include: uniform core licensure requirements, uniform licensure application, and credential verification
organizations.
UNIFORM CORE LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS
Professional licensure requirements assure that the individuals who are granted the authority to practice have demonstrated specified educational, examination and behavioral
requirements. Core licensure requirements are defined as those minimum requirements that are essential to assure public protection. An example of a core requirement is the
requirement of physicians and nurses to undergo a criminal background check. The purpose of developing uniform core licensure requirements is to assure common licensure standards critical to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare. Common standards also promote the mobility of licensed health professionals to practice in different states. Health
professional mobility facilitates consumers having access to health services provided by health professionals qualified according to consistent licensure standards regardless of where in the country the consumer lives. Individual states may also include requirements in
addition to the core requirements.
COMMON/UNIFORM LICENSURE APPLICATION
One way to reduce the barriers to cross-state licensure is to simplify the application process. A uniform licensure application is a single application for licensure that can be used by multiple states, thereby eliminating the requirement for a state specific application, while allowing for state unique requirements to be met through the use of addendum material to the uniform application. The applicant can go to a single website and enter information and select the participating states that they want the application sent. The applicant may also need to complete the state specific addendum for each state. A uniform application is designed to make the licensure process more portable among states, convenient, and less redundant.
One clear advantage of the uniform application is the elimination of the requirement to contact each state and obtain a state specific application. Once the uniform application is completed, it can be sent electronically to multiple states. It also allows the applicant to quickly update information without having to re-enter background information previously provided. The application is maintained for future use, ending some of the redundancies of completing an entire application each time. The receiving state can update data fields in their licensing databases saving personnel time and costs in reproducing, mailing and entering
13 applicant data. The addition of the discipline report and verification of licensing examination scores again saves time and cost at the state level.
Although the uniform application saves time and money, there are some limitations. The uniform application is just an application and, while the main body of the application meets the needs of some states, there still may remain state specific requirements that must be met. Some states that have developed their own online applications may be reluctant to abandon their application process for another online application. Unless the application is linked to an automatically updated credentials verification data base, applicants must still request primary source documents be sent to the state board, and the state board must still go through the primary source verification process. The lack of technology knowledge or training may limit the ability of the state to fully utilize all the advantages of the electronic transfer and storage methods available through the electronic application. The economic downturn has affected many state budgets limiting their ability to fund technological improvements and staffing costs associated with implementing a uniform application process.
CREDENTIAL VERIFICATION ORGANIZATION
A credentials verification organization (CVO) provides a service to the licensure applicant and state licensure authorities by obtaining and verifying the core14
One of the biggest advantages of a CVO is that applicants are able to complete the basic credentialing package and send the information to multiple states. The CVO performs the primary source verification process of core documents and obtains primary source
verification of multiple other requirements for state licensure including narrative information, licensing examination scores, and discipline information, thus eliminating the requirement for each state licensing board to individually verify many of the applicants' credentials. The credentials are maintained by the CVO and subsequent applications may require only minimal additional information to update and expedite the application process for another state licensing application.
documents and state specific requirements for licensure. Verifying credentials with the primary source (e.g., medical school graduation, job history) is a difficult and time consuming task in the licensure process. Once an applicant completes an application, state medical and nursing boards are under increasing pressure to make licensing decisions quickly and accurately. Using a CVO removes pressure from licensure authorities to carry out such tasks, with the added benefit that once these credentials are obtained by the CVO, the credentials are permanently maintained in a protected, secure environment.
A primary example in the United States is the Federation of State Medical Boards’
Federation Credential Verification Service (FCVS). The FCVS serves as a repository of core documents for medical licensure and obtains and verifies a majority of state specific
documents to expedite the licensure process. The National Council on State Boards of Nursing also uses a repository to verify core requirements of nurses. Nursys® collects and disseminates licensure data for public verification of licenses, board of nursing to board of
14
Core documents are required by most state licensing authorities with little variation. They are stable, unchanging documents that once verified do not require re-verification. Examples of core documents are those documenting basic medical education and post graduate training.
14 nursing verification, discipline actions, and acts as the central information source for
participating boards. Participating boards of nursing have been regularly feeding licensure and discipline data into Nursys® since 1999. There are currently 41 boards of nursing providing data to Nursys®. Nursys® provides online verification to a nurse requesting to practice in another jurisdiction. Nursys® keeps information on actions taken against nurses licensed in participating states and their privileges to practice in other participating NLC states.
Despite their advantages, challenges remain in using CVOs. The CVO does not obviate the labor intensive process of initially obtaining and verifying documents. Obtaining
international documents can be difficult and time consuming, which may lengthen the verification process for some applicants. Moreover, there may be a cost to the applicant for using the CVO in addition to the cost of obtaining a state license. Furthermore, states may require additional forms or verifications above those provided by the CVO. The state may still be required to maintain and store the application documents. The time to obtain the core credential package added to the time to complete additional state specific requirements may extend the time needed to obtain a license.
LICENSURE PORTABILITY GRANTS
Licensure portability has become increasingly important in advancing the availability and acceptance of telehealth services as new technologies increase the effective use of telehealth services. The problem remains that healthcare markets do not always correspond to state jurisdictional boundaries. License portability extends the benefits of electronic practice to maximize the availability of affordable and cost-effective healthcare across state
jurisdictions.
Recognizing that the issues of licensure and the delivery of telehealth services were evolving and becoming more complex, the U.S. Congress passed the Health Care Safety Net
Amendments of 2002, Public Law (P.L.) 107-251. Section 102 authorized the awarding of incentive grants to state professional licensing boards to promote cooperation and encourage development and implementation of state policies that will reduce statutory and regulatory barriers to telehealth.
In the context of this authorization, the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth (OAT) executed a contract in 2004, whereby the Federation of State Medical Boards and two groups of state medical boards began to design multi-state telehealth demonstration projects in their respective multi-state regions (in the northeast and west). The two regional groups worked together to achieve consensus on the broad outline of the models they would develop, and they submitted a preliminary report.
In 2005, OAT continued to work with the FSMB to outline a model interstate agreement among the participating state boards to facilitate licensure portability across state
boundaries. The report from this contract provided the initial groundwork to develop specifications for the technical and organizational infrastructure required to implement the model agreement. This included: 1) a model interstate agreement among the participating state boards; 2) technical assessments on each individual state board's information
15 technology capabilities and identification of technical needs for implementation of such a model interstate agreement; 3) specifications of technical architecture required for
implementation; 4) a feasibility analysis, including costs, associated with the practical implementation of two state licensure portability demonstration projects; and 5) feasibility analysis of implementing interstate agreements to additional jurisdictions.
Pursuant to the authorization of the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002, (P.L. 107-251), Congress appropriated funds in FY 2006 for incentive grants to be awarded to state professional licensing boards to promote collaborations that would develop and implement state policies to reduce statutory and regulatory barriers to telehealth. In 2006, OAT built upon the lessons learned from its 2004 and 2005 contracts with the FSMB to develop and implement the Licensure Portability Grant Program (LPGP). The program is designed to leverage the experience of state licensing boards that have a strong record in implementing cross-border activities to overcome licensure barriers to the provision of telehealth services across many states.
The FSMB and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) received LPGP awards in the first competition. Under a 3-year Licensure Portability grant, the FSMB developed model agreements in two regions of the country (northeast and west) to expedite the licensure process and eliminate redundancies associated with applying for licenses in multiple jurisdictions. The need to harmonize licensure rules across states also has been well recognized by the nursing profession. The Nurse License Compact (NLC) was developed by the NCSBN in the late 1990s. The mutual recognition model of nurse licensure allows a nurse to have one license (in state of residency) and to practice in other states (both in person and electronically), subject to each state's practice law and regulation. Under the Licensure Portability grant, the NCSBN pursued a range of activities to overcome the barriers to adopting the NLC. More specifically, the grant focused on providing pathways to facilitate the adoption of the Uniform Core Licensure Requirements, critical prerequisites to joining the NLC. Under the grant program, two additional states adopted the Nurse Licensure Compact and six states implemented criminal background checks. The LPGP was competed again in fiscal year 2009 for funding up to three years. The FSMB received an award to continue its efforts to reduce the barriers to cross-state licensure.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), P. L. 111-5, provided additional funding to support licensure portability initiatives. The ARRA LPGP grantees will continue developing programs under which licensing boards of various states will cooperate to develop and implement policies that reduce statutory and regulatory barriers to Telehealth. ARRA funding is one time, up-front funding for 2 years. The FSMB and the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing were awarded grants beginning in March 2010, for physician-related projects to be completed by February 2012.
MAJOR LICENSURE MODELS FOR NURSES AND
PHYSICIANS
Although a number of health professions are studying the licensure issues, medicine and nursing have taken the lead at this point by adopting formal approaches to adapting state
16 licensure requirements to accommodate practice across state lines. In 1996, the Federation of State Medical Boards adopted, A Model Act to Regulate the Practice of Medicine Across State Lines, calling on state medical boards to adopt a “special purpose license” to authorize limited practice in states other than the physician’s state of practice. According to the Federation, 16 states have adopted limited licensure models. Since that time, the Federation has initiated a number of other approaches to expanding licensure portability. The National Council of State Boards of Nursing approved a Nurse Licensure Compact in 1998, by which states could agree to recognize a license granted by another participating state. The
following section will further describe initiatives taken by each of these organizations and review the specific challenges and/or concerns that have arisen in implementing these models.
NURSES
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE BOARDS OF NURSING/NURSE LICENSURE
COMPACT MODEL
DESCRIPTION 15
Founded in 1978 as an independent, 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, NCSBN can trace its roots to the American Nurses Association (ANA) Council on State Boards of Nursing. The leadership of NCSBN consists of the NCSBN Board of Directors and the NCSBN Delegate Assembly (representative of the 60 state boards of nursing). The that comprise NCSBN protect the public by ensuring that safe and competent nursing care is provided by licensed nurses. NCSBN is the vehicle through which boards of nursing act and counsel together on matters of common interest.
The NCSBN has developed a far reaching mutual recognition model for licensing nurses. In 1998, the NCSBN Delegate Assembly adopted model legislation for state mutual recognition of nurse licenses across state lines.
The NLC was first implemented on January 1, 2000, when it was passed into law by the first participating states: Maryland, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. Currently 24 states participate in the NLC. A list of the Compact states is provided in Attachment 1. According to the
NCSBN, Indiana applied to join the Compact, but was not admitted twice due to material differences between the Indiana legislation and the model NLC legislation. Indiana supporters indicate that they plan to re-introduce legislation to join the NLC next year. In February 2010, New Jersey legislators introduced legislation for New Jersey to enter the Compact.
Under the NLC mutual recognition model, practice across state lines is allowed, whether physical or electronic, unless the nurse is under discipline or a monitoring agreement that
15 The material presented in this section is based on information provided by the National Council of State
17 restricts practice across state lines. In order to achieve mutual recognition, each state must enter into an interstate compact, called the Nurse Licensure Compact (NLC).
The NLC allows a nurse to have one license (in his or her state of residency) and to practice in other states (both physically and electronically), subject to each state's practice laws and discipline. The license is held by the nurse in her primary state of residence (home state) that grants her a multistate licensure privilege to practice in other Compact states (remote states). Sources used to verify a nurse’s primary residence for the NLC may include, but are not limited to, driver’s license, federal income tax return or voter registration.
The NLC is implemented through laws passed by the legislature of each participating state. The essence of any state NLC law must permit the nursing board of that state to recognize individuals licensed as nurses from other participating Compact states. The NLC is a legal contract between states. In each state that adopts the NLC, the NLC is an additional statutory layer above the individual state's Nurse Practice Act, which remains in place. Enactment of the NLC does not change a state's Nurse Practice Act. The NLC gives states additional authority in such areas as granting practice privileges, taking actions and sharing
investigative information with other NLC states prior to taking disciplinary action against a nurse.
All states that currently belong to the NLC also operate the single state licensure model for those nurses who reside legally in a NLC state, but do not qualify for multi-state licensure. Moreover, the licensing authority in the state where an application is made retains the authority not to issue a license if the applicant does not meet the qualifications or standards for granting a license.
The NLC model legislation includes registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical or vocational nurses (LPN/VNs), but does not include advanced practice nurses. A separate model compact was developed for advanced practice nurses. The remainder of this section will focus on the NLC.
Once the NLC is enacted, each Compact state designates a Nurse Licensure Compact Administrator to facilitate the exchange of information between the states relating to
Compact nurse licensure and regulation. On January 10, 2000, the Nurse Licensure Compact Administrators (NLCA) was organized to protect the public's health and safety by promoting compliance with the laws governing the practice of nursing in each party state through the mutual recognition of party state licenses.
The NLCA develops rules and regulations to administer the Compact. Individual state boards of nursing in the NLC adopt the rules, and the rules must be promulgated according to each state’s administrative procedures act. If an individual state refuses to adopt the rules the NLCA develops, that state would be in violation of the NLC contract and thus could lose the right to belong to the NLC.
Under the NLC, only the home state (the state where the nurse has declared residency and which issues the license) can take direct action against a nurse's license because only the home state has issued the license. Action by that state means any administrative, civil or criminal penalty permitted by that state's laws which is imposed on a nurse by the board of
18 nursing or other authority in the state of residency/licensure. This includes actions against an individual's license.
Nevertheless, the NLC provides that nurses are held accountable for complying with the nursing practice laws and other regulations in the state where the patient is located at the time care is rendered (state of practice), be it in their home state or in a remote state. The remote state is the Compact state that is not the state of residency/licensure and represents a new authority granted to the participants of the NLC. Remote state action is any administrative, civil or criminal penalty imposed on a nurse by a remote state's licensure board or other authority, other than direct action against a nurse’s license that is issued by another Compact state.
Thus, disciplinary action can be taken by both the state of licensure (“state of residency” or “home state”) and state of practice where the patient is located at the time an adverse incident has occurred (remote state). Complaints in a remote Compact state would be processed in the state the violation was reported to have occurred, and the action taken would also be reported to the state of residency. While the remote state (state of practice) can take disciplinary action against a nurse, only the home state (state of residency) can take direct action against a nurse’s license. For example, the state of practice may issue a cease- and-desist order against the nurse, and the state of residency may also take disciplinary action against the license of that nurse, up to and including removing that nurse’s license to practice. Many states choose to investigate the complaint in the state in which the incident occurred and transfer that information to the licensing board for action, so it is taken on the licensee only once.
The NCSBN has developed a coordinated licensure information system called Nu rs ys® to enable the sharing of information. All information involving any action is accessible to all NLC states. Additional information in Nu rs ys® is also available to participating non-Compact states.
Every state in the Compact must report any actions taken to the Nu rs ys® database. The remote NLC state must report any significant current investigations underway regarding complaints lodged against nurses in the state. The home state will be notified through Nu rs ys® of any significant investigative information and any actions on the privilege to practice in the remote state. All NLC states share contact information for persons
undergoing a current investigation.
BENEFITS OF THE NURSE COMPACT MODEL
According to the NLCA, the NLC offers the following benefits for advancing nurse practice in the United States:
• It clarifies the authority to practice for many nurses currently engaged in providing telehealth services or practicing across state lines.
• It simplifies and streamlines the burden and cost of obtaining multiple licenses to practice in multiple states, thereby enhancing the mobility of nurses.
19
• It improves access to nursing care, especially in the modern age of electronic practice where nurse can electronically be brought to the patient, wherever they may be, which may not be congruent with the boundaries of state geographic borders.
• It enhances the ability of licensed nurses to respond to disasters or respond to changes in the demand for qualified nursing services.
• It enhances the ability of Compact states to readily exchange the most current and accurate investigatory information, facilitating more timely and appropriate action in individual disciplinary cases.
Many groups have endorsed the nurse compact model, including many state nurse associations, largely reflecting their belief that the Compact will simplify government processes and remove regulatory barriers to increase access to safe nursing care as nursing practice is no longer easily defined by geographic boundaries. In their support of the Compact, these groups frequently cite its role in facilitating cross-state practice and the mobility of the nursing workforce that is a growing fact of life in modern nursing. The need to practice across state lines can be a significant factor in healthcare practices involving nurse advice lines, telehealth, long distance monitoring of patients, and hospital follow-up care. Examples of the national groups supporting the Compact are: American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing, American Nephrology Nurses Association, American
Telemedicine Association, American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, American Organization of Nurse Executives, Case Management Leadership Coalition and Case
Management Society of America, Disease Management Association of America, the Emergency Nurses Association, and the Center for Telehealth and E-Health Law. Several state nursing associations have expressed support for the Compact, including the Arkansas, Idaho, and Texas Nurses Associations.
Additional support for the Compact has been provided by the National Governors
Association’s State Alliance for e-Health. In its “First Annual Report and Recommendations from the State Alliance for e-Health,” the Alliance recommended that governors and state legislators direct their state’s nursing board to participate in the NLC. Moreover, they recommended that governors and state legislatures should provide financial support to the nursing boards for the initial implementation of the NLC and ensure that the boards are funded at levels needed to assure public protection operations.16
CHALLENGES/BARRIERS
Despite the many groups that have supported the NLC, one very important group has expressed concerns about it. In 1998, the American Nurses Association (ANA) first
introduced the mutual recognition concept at its House of Delegates (HOD) and it resulted in a resolution outlining 14 issues the HOD believed must be addressed for the ANA to support the Compact model. The 14 points of concern were reduced to seven (7) talking points in
16
National Governors Association, ACCELERATING PROGRESS: Using Health Information Technology and Electronic Health Information Exchange to Improve Care, page 37, 2008.
20 2007. The detailed ANA talking points and the NCSBN responses are provided in the
Appendix.
As of March 2010, the ANA had not chosen to endorse the model and had not officially revisited this issue since 2007. It has maintained that official support or opposition to the model is within the purview of individual state nursing associations. In states where the state nurse associations and others have opposed the NLC, a variety of reasons have been given for the opposition, but most frequently the ANA talking points are cited. As such, it is important to understand the issues being raised in the talking points, as well as the National Council's response to them. Although the reasons for opposing the Compact vary state-to-state, the persistent challenges to adoption of the NLC can be categorized into five broad groups:
• Control/Loss of Authority
• Lack of Uniform Standards
• Costs/Loss of Revenue
• Strike Breaking
• Perception vs. Actual Experience/Lack of Independent Evaluation
Control/Loss of Authority: In order to adopt the NLC, each state must pass legislation enacting the Compact. Subsequent to enactment of the Compact, each state appoints a Compact Administrator to oversee the Compact in his/her own state, who also participates in the Nurse Licensure Compact Administrators (NLCA). The NLCA oversees implementation of the Compact and establishes basic standards for operating within the Compact, including development of uniform rules to facilitate and coordinate implementation of this Compact. These uniform rules must be adopted by each state before it can enter the Compact. As such, some legislators, boards and nursing associations have come to see the NLCA as a third tier of government to which they must respond. This is particularly an issue for some nurse associations and unions who believe that the NLCA will be less responsive to their concerns than their own state board. Opposition to the Compact also arises from concerns regarding the ability to enforce nurse practice acts, especially with regard to disciplinary actions against nurses who practice in their state but do not reside in the state although as noted in
Attachment 7, nothing in the NLC abrogates state practice acts or the obligation of state boards to oversee nurse practice in their state.
Lack of Uniform Standards: The multi-jurisdictional nature of the Compact agreement assumes a level of trust among the licensing boards to carry out responsibilities in a thorough, mutually acceptable, and responsible manner to ensure the protection of their citizens. Because of variations in state nurse practice acts and administrative practices, this level of trust is not always shared. The NLC promotes a set of core licensure requirements, but it does not supersede each state’s nurse practice act and procedures. Underlying the opposition to joining the Compact by some state boards is the perception that other states in the Compact do not uniformly adhere to the same standards for administration, reporting, and discipline as they do. Moreover, not all states have implemented the core licensure
requirements. For example, criminal background checks (CBCs) are a core licensure requirement adopted by the NCSBN Delegate Assembly. Currently, 19 of the 24 states participating in the NLC require state and/or Federal CBCs. The remaining five states
21 continue to work on getting legislation passed to grant them the authority necessary in order to obtain the CBCs.
As noted above, states are required to investigate nurses who practice in their state (either physically or electronically) and who have been accused of violating the state's nurse practice act. If the nurse does not reside in their state, the state cannot revoke the nurse's license, but can revoke the nurse's privilege to practice in their state and the state must report its findings to Nurs ys®. Moreover, the Compact allows participating states to share pre-decisional investigatory information, allowing party states to determine whether it should deny a nurse the privilege to practice in their state, pending the outcome of any investigations in other party states. This provides an added protection for the public against venue shopping by nurses that may be under investigation, but provides an opportunity for party states to determine for themselves what actions, if any, they wish to take under these circumstances.
Cost/Revenue Losses:
In addition to concerns about the potential for increased costs of implementing the Compact, opposition to the Compact has also centered on potential revenue losses. Many states rely upon licensure fees to sustain their operating expenses. Under the Compact, states can lose revenues from out-of-state nurses who practice in their states that formerly would have had to obtain a license to practice in their states. At the same time, these states could experience increased costs associated with investigations and discipline actions that might need to be taken against errant out-of-state nurses. The ANA in its 2007 talking points noted that a number of Compact states estimated that they would see increased costs and decreased out-of-state licensure revenues as a result of implementing the Compact.
The ANA and others opposing the Compact have noted that there are significant costs, which a state must incur when implementing the Compact. For example, there are associated IT costs (hardware and software) in implementing Nu rs ys®. Potential ongoing staffing costs include additional staff to administer the Compact, oversee criminal background checks, report disciplinary actions, and conduct investigations. Although some of these additional costs might be ultimately offset by savings, the state boards do not
necessarily have the funds to make the up-front investments or support expanded operational costs, especially at this time of declining budgets. Nor do the boards necessarily control their budgets, as some nursing boards are part of conglomerate boards that oversee several
professional groups, wherein the nursing board does not have independent authority to set its priorities, control its budget, or conduct disciplinary investigations.
In 2008 and 2009, the NCSBN conducted an analysis of the actual fiscal impact on states adopting the Compact. Fifteen (15) Compact states participated in study. Funding for the study was provided by a Licensure Portability grant from the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth. Cost information was collected focusing on the following four main areas: IT costs, communication costs, administrative costs, and revenue changes. Among the 15 states, two states indicated that the implementation of the NLC did not have any specific fiscal impacts for them, therefore, no actual expense figures were provided. For the remaining 13 states, there were significant variations in the expenditures for setting-up the NLC, with costs ranging from $8,350 to $216,000. These set-up costs primarily involved administrative expenses which included adding a separate NLC administrator position (not required by implementing the NLC), employing temporary staff as well as the costs related to workload increase at the early stage of implementing the NLC. The revenue gains and losses following
22 entry into the NLC were related to increases or decreases in the number of new applications based on the new NLC state of residence rule. Revenue gains and losses were primarily associated with changes in: 1) licensure renewals, 2) endorsements, 3) verifications of credentials, and 4) issuance of temporary practice permits.
As noted by the NCSBN, the operational cost data also revealed significant variations from state to state. A possible cause for having the large variations in the fiscal impacts on state boards for implementing the NLC could be related to the technical and human resources of the boards as well as residency of the practicing nurses in those states. The study further showed a positive relationship between the number of licensees registered in a state and the costs of implementing the NLC. This suggests that the larger the nursing population in a state, the higher the cost of implementing the NLC; this finding, however, was not
statistically significant. On average, the total cost of implementing the NLC was $78,448, ranging from a gain of $112,800 to a loss of $343,000. The study authors estimate that an average cost of $1.17 per licensee could be used to estimate the total cost of entry.
Since states participated in the NLC at different time periods ranging from 2000 to 2007, the NCSBN further examined if there were any differences in the reported costs between those states who participated in the NLC five years earlier compared to more recent participants. On average, the six states (50 percent) who entered the NLC before 2003 reported a much lower cost than the six (50 percent) who entered into the NLC after 2003, even though this difference is not statistically significant17.
Strike Breaking:
In some of the non-compact states, unions and the state nurse associations have opposed the Compact partially based on their belief that it would facilitate strike breaking. Thus, if the Compact is to significantly grow, it must address this concern. It should be noted, however, that in the states that have implemented the Compact, there has been no evidence presented that associates the NLC with strikebreaking.
With the exception of Texas, the Compact is currently composed of medium and small states in which union presence is not as strong as in some of the large, non-compact states (e.g., New York, California). Moreover, 14 of the 24 states in the Compact are "Right-to-Work" states (58 percent), compared to 31 percent of the non-compact states.
Moreover, to the extent an individual state is concerned about the strikebreaking potential of the Compact, it can include language in the Compact agreement explicitly stating that the NLC does not supersede any existing labor law. Further, under the current single state licensure system, it is possible to utilize nurses from other states in strike situations. However, there are many obstacles and considerations to the physical relocation of nurses. The implementation of NLC is unlikely to reduce these practical obstacles to facilitate strikebreaking.
17
NCSBN Research Department, National Council of State Boards of Nursing: Nurse Licensure Compact Economic Model Evaluation Update (May 2009) found at:
23
Perception vs. Actual Experience/Lack of Independent Evaluation: Opposition to the Compact is often based on perceived barriers to the Compact, including those reflected in the ANA talking points, but not necessarily based on actual experience. Since the first states implemented the Compact in 2000, there have been three evaluations of the Compact model, but only one independent multi-faceted assessment. In 2003, the NCSBN conducted a survey of 11 states participating in the Compact. Boards of nursing were asked the numbers of multi-state and active licenses, revenue and expenses, and discipline-related information for the periods before and after implementation of the compact. Randomly selected licensees and employers in the Compact states were also surveyed. In 2006, the NCSBN contracted with the Gallup Organization and Insight Policy Research to conduct the only multi-faceted analysis of the NLC. This evaluation was designed to identify the NLC’s impact on the State Boards of Nursing in both NLC and non-NLC states as well as its impact on actively
practicing nurses. In 2009, the fiscal impact study noted above was conducted by the NCSBN.18
The Gallup evaluation provided some early multi-faceted data on the Compact, but failed to address many of the underlying issues raised by the ANA. Perhaps more importantly, the Gallup evaluation reflected the early Compact state experiences. There have been no recent independent evaluations of the Compact states.
APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES
Despite the challenges discussed above, the NLC has proven itself to be a resilient model over the past 10 years. Nevertheless, for this model to significantly impact licensure
portability, more states will need to join. It has been posited that a minimum of 30-35 states will need to join the NLC before a “tipping point” is reached wherein the Compact becomes the predominant model of licensure in the United States. However, given the slow rate of adoption in the past six years, it will require a concerted effort on the part of the NCSBN and the NLCA for this tipping point to be reached. The following actions/activities are either underway or have been proposed as strategies for addressing some of the challenges discussed above.
Harmonization of Standards/Criminal Background Checks:
A critical licensure requirement is the conduct of Federal criminal background checks (CBC) on all nurses applying for a license to practice. Boards of nursing perform criminal
background checks to identify individuals who may pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. One barrier to states implementing CBCs is cost. Costs include
software for fingerprint tracking, support staff to assist with mailings and data entry, postage, To facilitate state adoption of the NLC, adherence to the NCSBN’s Uniform Licensure Requirements is an increasingly important step to overcome objections that arise from a lack of common standards among the states. Ultimately, NCSBN and its member boards know that adoption of these requirements will diminish concerns over disparate qualifications for licensure in the compact states. The NCSBN Committee on Uniform Licensure Requirements has revisited its Uniform Licensure Requirements and, as of August 2010, its recommendations are being shared with its member boards.
24 staff training, etc. Moreover, in certain states, specific legislation must be passed to
authorize state boards to conduct these checks. Under the Licensure Portability Grant Program, the NCSBN provided funds that enabled six states to adopt CBCs. One of the major barriers encountered in this project was the inability of states to be able to share criminal background checks with each other. Under the FBI’s current regulations each state needs to request (and each nurse must pay for) its own criminal background check on a nurse, even if that nurse has undergone a recent check (or simultaneous check) in another state. This process can cause unnecessary duplication and costs in the system.
NCSBN is supporting state boards in their implementation of criminal background checks, irrespective of their being in the NLC. To this end, the NCSBN is working with the FBI and the Department of Justice to explore more effective sharing of criminal background
information through state adoption of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (NCPPC).19 The NCPPC facilitates electronic information sharing among the Federal Government and the states, permitting the exchange of criminal history records for
noncriminal justice purposes when authorized by federal or state law. State ratification of the NCPPC provides the legal framework for the establishment of a cooperative Federal-State system for the interstate exchange of criminal history records for noncriminal justice uses. Federal agencies conducting background checks for employment and licensing purposes benefit from receipt of the most complete and accurate criminal history record investigations (CHRI) available. Currently 29 states participate in the NCPPC. Adoption of the NCPPC by all states would facilitate the accurate and timely sharing of critical criminal background information.
Evaluation: An independent evaluation of the impact of the NLC, both positive and negative, offers the promise of correcting misinformation regarding the Compact and offers opportunities for states to work together to address any continuing issues that have arisen from the Compact, based on fact. This evaluation should provide empirical data, not simply interview data, on the impact of the Compact on employers, nurses, board licensure
efficiency, the disciplinary process, and on workforce mobility. For example, it would be highly instructive to have data on the role of the Compact in preventing errant nurses from practicing in a state by the timely provision of providing pre-decisional disciplinary information. Although the NCSBN has no immediate plans for implementing such an evaluation, it is planning a summit in CY 2011 to examine the experiences and lessons learned from the Compact states.
Education: Despite significant progress in reaching out to state boards and providing cogent educational materials about the NLC, significant misconceptions remain. Although some of these could be addressed by the evaluation suggested above, the best data and research often has limited impact on public policies unless coupled with a focused strategy for
disseminating this information. For the NLC to expand, a concerted educational outreach strategy needs to be pursued that is customized to the different non-compact states and their particular issues.
19
On October 9, 1998, President Clinton signed into law the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (Compact) United States Code, (U.S.C.) Title 42, Chapter 140, Subchapter II, Sections 14611-14616.
